Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 780 (TS)

Vakati Venkataramana died v. Bhukya Yamuna

2025-06-09

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. C.R.P.No.791 of 2024 : Civil Revision Petition No.791 of 2024 is filed assailing the order dated 22.01.2024 in I.A.No.1619 of 2023 in O.S.No.187 of 2016 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Hanumakonda. C.R.P.No.1076 of 2024: Civil Revision Petition No.1076 of 2024 is filed to set aside the order dated 22.01.2024 in I.A.No.1576 of 2023 in O.S.No.187 of 2016 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Hanumakonda. 2. Heard Sri.R.K.Chitta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.R.Manjulal, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Since both the revision petitions are interconnected, the same were heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order. 4. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. For convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. 5. Brief facts of the matter necessary for adjudication of present revision petitions are that the plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the house plot admeasuring 392 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.517 of Waddepaly, Hanumakonda Mandal, Warangal District (herein after referred as “Suit Schedule Property”) against the defendants vide O.S.No.187 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hanamkonda. 6. The defendants, entered appearance and filed written statement, issues were framed, the trial was concluded and the matter was coming up for arguments. At that stage, plaintiffs filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of C.P.C vide I.A.No.1619 of 2023 in O.S.No.187 of 2016 to receive certain documents along with an application to re-open the case for further evidence of PW.1 vide I.A.No.1576 of 2023. In the affidavit filed in support of application to receive documents it is averred that at the time of filing of suit, certain documents were filed along with the plaint, however, the plaintiffs could not file C.C of proceedings in File No.A2/1976, 1977, 1978, 1976, FIR along with the complaint, Remand Report and Confession statements in Crime Nos.127 of 2023 and 107 of 2023 of P.S.Kazipet and the same are necessary to prove their case. It is further averred that the said documents were obtained from concerned authorities, recently, therefore, they could not file the same earlier and prayed to receive the documents. 7. It is further averred that the said documents were obtained from concerned authorities, recently, therefore, they could not file the same earlier and prayed to receive the documents. 7. Counter on behalf of the defendants was filed resisting the application and stated that the documents sought to be taken on record are not related to the suit and there is no reference to the said documents in the plaint or in the chief affidavit, that parties cannot travel beyond the pleadings and that plaintiffs are not parties to the said documents, therefore, the said documents are not essential and as such, the same cannot be taken on record. It is further stated that entire evidence was closed and the matter was coming up for arguments and at that stage the petitions were filed only to protract the matter. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application. 8. On consideration of the averments made in the affidavit as well as averments in the counter and submissions made by the both the learned counsel, the trial Court dismissed the application with an observation that neither the plaintiffs nor the vendors are parties to the said documents and moreover documents cannot be relied upon without any pleadings in the plaint and further, the same cannot be taken at this stage as the suit is of the year 2016 and the documents are no way relevant or helpful for adjudication of the suit. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.01.2024, Civil Revision Petition No.791 of 2024 is filed. 9. Consequent to dismissal of I.A.No.1619 of 2023, I.A.No.1576 of 2023 was also dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2024. Aggrieved by the same, C.R.P.No.1076 of 2024 is filed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the trial Court dismissed the application without properly appreciating significance and relevancy of the documents for proper adjudication of the matter. He would further submit that the trial Court dismissed the application on assumptions and presumptions without considering the fact that the documents sought to be taken on record were not within the knowledge of petitioners and therefore, the same could be filed along with the plaint and this aspect was not properly appreciated by the trial Court. Thus, prayed to allow the revision. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and another Vs. Thus, prayed to allow the revision. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and another Vs. P.Rajkumar represented by his Power Agent, (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706 2. Dodda Jesintha W/o Geroge Reddy Vs. Yelapati Rathnaker Reddy S/o Ram Reddy and another , 2024 LawSuit (TS) 64 3. Musheerunnisa Begum Vs. Mohd. Sheryar Khan , 2024 SCC Online TS 256 4. Levaku Pedda Reddamma and others vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and another , 2022 LawSuit (SC) 739 5. Sirugudi Adinarayana vs. Bodla Mariamma , [2003 LawSuit (AP) 1173] 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the trial Court considering the reasons set out by the petitioners as well as the submissions made, rightly dismissed the application and no grounds are made out to interfere with the well reasoned order of the trial Court. He would further submit that suit was coming up for arguments and at that stage, the application was filed to receive documents which are no way connected to the suit and further, no reasons have been assigned for filing the said documents at belated stage. He would further submit that there is no reference to the said documents in the plaint and in the absence of pleadings, the documents or evidence cannot be taken on record and thus, prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the following judgments in support of his contention: 1. G.Sanjeeva Reddy and others vs. Indukuru Lakshmamma and others 2. Bagai Construction and others Vs. M/s Gupta Building Material Store , [2013 Lawsuit (SC)171] (2006) 3 ALT 66 14. Perusal of record would disclose that petitioners filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and also to declare the sale deed vide document No.5369 of 2015 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3, as null and void and not binding on the petitioners/ plaintiffs. Entire trial was completed and the matter was coming up for arguments and at that stage present applications were filed to receive documents and to reopen case for further evidence of PW.1. Entire trial was completed and the matter was coming up for arguments and at that stage present applications were filed to receive documents and to reopen case for further evidence of PW.1. It is relevant to note that no reasons have been assigned for filing the said applications at the belated stage and also relevancy of the documents to prove the case of petitioners/plaintiffs except saying that same are essential to prove their case. A perusal of the documents sought to be taken on record filed before this Court would reveal that said documents do not pertain to Suit Schedule Property and neither the plaintiff nor their vendors are parties to the said documents and further, learned counsel for the petitioners failed to explain as to how the said documents are relevant or helpful to the petitioners to prove their title in respect of Suit Schedule Property. 15. This Court carefully gone through the documents sought to be taken on file and the same pertains to the declaration filed by vendors of defendants and as rightly observed by the trial Court, the weakness/defect in title of the respondents/defendants is not relevant factor for adjudicating the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for declaration of title. In a suit for declaration of title, the burden is always on the plaintiffs to prove title and ownership over the suit schedule property and suit has to stand or fall on its own merits and since the document sought to be taken on record do not pertain or no way related to title of petitioners/plaintiffs the same cannot be relevant for adjudication of the suit. It is also relevant to note that suit was coming up for arguments and at that stage present application was filed. Further, there is no reference of the documents in the plaint and no reasons have been assigned for filing documents at the belated stage. 16. Let us now, discuss the judgment relied upon by both the counsel. i) In Sugandhi case (supra), it was held that the discretion conferred upon the Court to grant leave to defendant to produce the document which ought to have been produced in the Court along with the written statement. However, such leave has to be exercised judiciously and further observed that there is no straitjacket formula and leave can be granted by the Court on a good cause being shown by the defendant. However, such leave has to be exercised judiciously and further observed that there is no straitjacket formula and leave can be granted by the Court on a good cause being shown by the defendant. ii) In Dodda Jesintha case (supra), learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed an application filed by the plaintiffs to receive documents which pertains to the period subsequent to filing of the suit and imposed costs as plaintiff was not diligent in prosecuting the case. iii) In Musheerunnisa Begum case (supra), in a suit for a partition, there were disputes with regard to execution of memorandum of gift deed and plaintiff filed an application to receive copies of charge sheet and FSL report and signatures of defendants in a memorandum gift deed and said application was allowed by the trial Court, challenging the same revision was filed and the said revision was dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court as charge sheet and FSL report are directly related or connected to the issue in the suit. iv) In Levaku Pedda Reddamma case (supra), it was held that it is well settled that rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice and therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents. v) In Sirugudi Adinarayana case (supra), it was held that, question of admissibility and relevancy of documents can be gone into by the Court not at the stage of granting leave to the defendant to produce the documents, but at the stage of hearing of the suit, which otherwise are required to be filed into the Court along with the written statement. vi) In G.Sanjeeva Reddy case (supra), it was held that:- “4. The provisions of the CPC, Order VII even as existed prior to the amendment in 1999 and 2002 require the plaintiff to state and file a list of all the documents upon which he seeks to rely in the suit. The legislative philosophy underlying this statutory requirements is that in the adversarial litigative paradigm, the opponent or defendant should not be taken by surprise and the plaintiff must disclose the broad documentary evidentiary platform on which the plaintiff’s claim is projected. This requirement is no doubt not inflexible. The legislative philosophy underlying this statutory requirements is that in the adversarial litigative paradigm, the opponent or defendant should not be taken by surprise and the plaintiff must disclose the broad documentary evidentiary platform on which the plaintiff’s claim is projected. This requirement is no doubt not inflexible. A plaintiff could be permitted to bring on record a document subsequent to the filing of the plaint also but a reasonable cause must be shown. Order VII Rule 14(3) as amended by the amendment Act of 1999 merely makes explicit what is inherint, namely that due care should be exercised by the Court and grant of leave by the Court is a condition precedent for bringing a document on record subsequent to the filing of the suit. If grant of leave were to be a mechanically act it was not necessary for the legislature to have invested a judicial authority with such a mechanical function. Exercise of discretion by the Court even in respect of a decision under Order VII Rule 14(3) is a discretion circumscribed by legal principles and not one based on whim or caprice.” vii) In M/s Bagai Construction case (supra), it was held that “plaintiff cannot be permitted to file such applications to fill the lacunae in its pleadings and evidence led by him that too after conclusion of evidence and final arguments and after reserving the matter for pronouncement of judgment in the absence of any acceptable reason or cause shown by the plaintiff as to why these documents were not placed on record by the plaintiff during the entire trial. 17. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court have consistently held that the courts have discretion to grant leave to the party to the suit to produce documents at any stage provided a sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the documents earlier and further, such discretion has to be exercised judiciously, basing upon facts and circumstances of each case. It is further held that a party to the suit cannot be permitted to fill the lacunae after conclusion of evidence and more so at belated stage, particularly, when the matter was coming for arguments. 18. It is further held that a party to the suit cannot be permitted to fill the lacunae after conclusion of evidence and more so at belated stage, particularly, when the matter was coming for arguments. 18. In the present case, admittedly suit was filed in the year 2016 and when the matter was coming up for arguments, the present application was filed to receive documents which pertain to the year much prior to the date of filing of the suit. It is further evident that plaintiffs are neither party to the said document nor the said documents are related to suit schedule properties. Moreover, except saying that plaintiffs have obtained documents recently and that the said documents are necessary to prove their case, the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to assign sufficient cause and offer cogent explanation for not filing the said documents either along with the plaint or during the course of trial and also as to how they are relevant to prove the case of plaintiffs. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are no way helpful to the petitioners/plaintiffs as facts and circumstances of those cases are completely different with that of present case. 19. Therefore in the light of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and petitioners failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court and thus, the Civil Revision Petition No.791 of 2024 is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition No.791 of 2024 is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of C.R.P.No.791 of 2024, the C.R.P.No.1076 is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.